Manda Nandkishor Akolkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.71 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10757 OF 2015 Manda w/o Nandkishor Akolkar Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Samta Nagar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32) 2.

The Eduction Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

3.

Shri. Raghunath s/o Patilba Muthe, The President, Shri Sant Tulshiram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha, Muthewadgaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Shri. Bhaskar s/o Paraji Shinde, The Secretary, Shri Sant Tulshiram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha, Muthewadgaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.

Shri. Dattatraya s/o Punjhari Pachpind, The Head Master, New English School, Bhamthan, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

..RESPONDENTS

(2) Mr V. A. Dhakne, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr P. R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.

DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2018 ORAL ORDER :

A detailed order was passed by this Court on 31st October, 2018.

2.

Mr Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 submitted before us that the cheque against amount to the tune of Rs.3,23,886/- is handed over to him and he be permitted to hand over the same to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3.

At the request of Mr Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5, we permit him to hand over the said cheque to learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner accepts the cheque in this Court.

(3) 4.

As this exercise is in compliance of the order passed in Writ Petition No.10757 of 2015 as well as in compliance of our order dated 31st October, 2018, the grievance of the petitioner is now redressed. As such, the contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner though submits that the dearness amount is not calculated as per the provisions, we are not inclined to entertain this dispute in the present contempt petition, as it would be beyond the scope of the present contempt petition and the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies, if so advised.

( MANGESH S. PATIL ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe